IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
|
|
- Nelson Stokes
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MADISON HIGHLANDS, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, SP GARDENS, LLC, WEST RIVER PHASE 2, LP AND WEST RIVER 1A, LP, Appellees. / Opinion filed February 24, 2017 Administrative Appeal from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Kenneth B. Bell, of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee, James W. Middleton, of James W. Middleton, PLLC, Jacksonville Beach, Michael G. Maida, of Michael G. Maida, P.A., Tallahassee, J. Timothy Schulte and Sarah Lindquist Pape, of Zimmerman, Kiser, & Sutcliffe, P.A., Orlando, William S. Bilenky and Douglas P. Manson, of Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. Chris McGuire, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Stacy D. Blank, of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, and Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., of Holland & Knight LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellee, SP Gardens, LLC
2 Michael P. Donaldson, of Carlton, Fields Jordan Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee, West River 1A. LP and West River Phase 2, LP. ORFINGER, J. Madison Highlands, LLC and American Residential Development, LLC (collectively Madison Highlands ) appeal a final order of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation ( FHFC ) dismissing its first and second amended petitions for a formal administrative proceeding pursuant to sections and , Florida Statutes (2016). We conclude that the doctrine of equitable tolling allows for the consideration of Madison Highlands s second amended petition, which was legally sufficient and demonstrated standing under Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the final order and remand for an administrative hearing pursuant to section , Florida Statutes (2016). The FHFC is the state agency designated to allocate and distribute low-income housing tax credits that the United States Treasury annually makes available to the states for various programs, including the State Housing Tax Credit Program (the Program ). See , Fla. Stat. (2016). Because the demand for housing credit funding exceeds available allocations under the Program, qualified affordable housing developers must compete for the funding. The competitive process is initiated when the FHFC issues a Request for Applications ( RFA ), and interested developers respond by submitting applications. Madison Highlands participates in the Program and competes for this funding. 2
3 The FHFC issued RFA for an award of tax credits for the development of affordable housing projects in several counties, including Hillsborough County, where only one development would be funded. Madison Highlands and others submitted applications, and in time, the FHFC posted a notice identifying SP Gardens, LLC ( Laburnum Gardens ) as the applicant to which it intended to award the tax credits for the Hillsborough County development. Madison Highlands timely filed a written protest to the notice and petitioned for an administrative hearing. 1 The FHFC issued an Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend, finding that Madison Highlands s first amended petition did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule (2)(e)-(f) as it did not include: (e) A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency s proposed action; [and] (f) A statement of the specific rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency s proposed action, including an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules or statutes.... The Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend gave Madison Highlands until March 4, 2016, to file an amended petition and stated that the [f]ailure of [Madison Highlands] to file an amended petition within this time shall be considered a waiver of its rights to file any administrative challenge in this matter. At 5:36 p.m. on March 4, 2016, Madison Highlands filed its second amended petition by electronic mail, again protesting the notice and petitioning for an administrative 1 Four applicants, including Laburnum Gardens, scored equally in the FHFC s evaluation matrix. Consequently, Laburnum Gardens was selected by lot. Madison Highlands s application had a lower score, and was the next ranked applicant. 3
4 hearing. The FHFC subsequently entered a Final Order that dismissed the second amended petition with prejudice, concluding that the second amended petition was untimely filed thirty-six minutes late and Madison Highlands had not demonstrated that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied. The FHFC further determined that even if timely, the second amended petition failed to establish that Madison Highlands had standing to protest the preliminary award because it did not contain adequate allegations against all of the four higher-ranked applicants that, if proven, would result in Madison Highlands being ranked highest. Madison Highlands challenges these determinations. We review an agency s conclusions of law de novo. Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Ass n, 793 So. 2d 1158, 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We agree with the FHFC that the second amended petition was untimely. Section (5), Florida Statutes (2016), requires the Administration Commission to adopt uniform rules of procedure to replace the multiple rules in the administrative code promulgated by the various agencies. See Fla. Pub. Emps. Council 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Jacksonville Emps. Together, 738 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The Uniform Rules provide, in relevant part, that [a]ny document received by the office of the agency clerk before 5:00 p.m. shall be filed as of that day but any document received after 5:00 p.m. shall be filed as of 8:00 a.m. on the next regular business day. Fla. Admin. Code R (3). However, the FHFC has published its own rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule (3), which specifies that when a petition is sent to its clerk by electronic mail, it shall be accepted on the date transmitted. Such a rule cannot serve as an exception to the Uniform Rules because the Administration Commission has not approved it as an exception to the time deadline set forth in rule (3) (5)(a), Fla. Stat. 4
5 (2016) (providing that Uniform Rules apply unless Administration Commission specifically grants exception to agency); see Dep t of Corr. v. Saulter, 742 So. 2d 368, (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (characterizing effect of section (5)(a) as legislative repeal of agency procedural rules in conflict with Uniform Rules). Thus, the second amended petition was untimely under rule (3). Nevertheless, Madison Highlands is entitled to the relief afforded by the equitable tolling doctrine. Section (2)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), requires agencies to dismiss untimely petitions, but further provides that this direction does not eliminate the availability of equitable tolling as a defense to the untimely filing of a petition. A late request for an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional defect. Machules v. Dep t of Admin., 523 So. 2d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 1988); Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State, Dep t of Corr., 72 So. 3d 277, 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see Williams v. Dep t of Corr., 156 So. 3d 563, 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ( The doctrine of equitable tolling can be applied to extend an administrative filing deadline. ). Under the doctrine of equitable tolling, a late-filed petition should be accepted when a party has been misled or lulled into inaction, has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum, provided that the opposing party will suffer no prejudice. Machules, 523 So. 2d at Madison Highlands asserts that it was misled or lulled into not timely filing the second amended petition by the terms of the Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend, which only stated that the second amended petition was due on March 4, Madison Highlands also submits that FHFC rule (3), published both in the Florida Administrative Register and on the FHFC website, provides that the second 5
6 amended petition, delivered by electronic mail, would be deemed filed the date it was transmitted, in this case, March 4, Madison Highlands claims it was not informed that FHFC rule (3) was not an approved exception to the Uniform Rules and neither the FHFC website nor the Order Dismissing the Petition with Leave to Amend cited to rule (3) or referenced the time cutoff provisions found in the Uniform Rules. Although FHFC had, on other occasions, included specific submittal times in certain situations, it did not do so here. Madison Highlands does not assert that it requested this information from FHFC or had any discussion with the FHFC concerning the applicability of the Uniform Rules. Indeed, Madison Highlands was aware that the Uniform Rules would apply to petitions filed with the FHFC since it referenced the Uniform Rules numerous times in its second amended petition, and never referenced chapter Notwithstanding, we conclude that the FHFC affirmatively lulled or misled Madison Highlands into relying on rule Madison Highlands s mistake was based on the FHFC s act of publishing FHFC Rule (3) on its website without also publishing or referencing Uniform Rule (3), but then applying the 5:00 p.m. time deadline from the Uniform Rules to Madison Highlands s petition. Equitable tolling does not require active deception or agency misconduct, but focuses rather on the applicant with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights. See, e.g., Machules, 523 So. 2d at 1134; see also Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc., 72 So. 3d 277 (applying equitable tolling to disappointed bidder s late filed formal bid protest petition where bidder alleged that petition was timely delivered to department s security guard, who prevented bidder from delivering petition directly to clerk s office and instead 6
7 accepted petition, stamped it with department-issued time and date stamp, and affirmatively led bidder to believe that no further action was required). In addition, no prejudice was shown because the opposing parties were on notice that Madison Highlands intended to file the second amended petition. See Machules, 523 So. 2d at 1137 (finding that opposing party was not prejudiced by petition that was filed one day late when opposing party obviously was on notice that petitioner intended to appeal ). We also agree with Madison Highlands that the FHFC erred in ruling that it had not shown standing under the Agrico test. Whether a party has standing to bring an action is a question of law that is to be reviewed de novo. Mid-Chattahoochee River Users v. Fla. Dep t of Envtl. Prot., 948 So. 2d 794, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Hospice of Palm Beach Cty., Inc. v. State, Ag. for Health Care Admin., 876 So. 2d 4, 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). An administrative agency s action may be set aside if [t]he agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action (7)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016). Moreover, the standing issue in this case involves the application of general principles of administrative law. Therefore, we need not give any deference to the legal analysis in the final order on this issue. S. Broward Hosp. Distr. v. State, Ag. for Health Care Admin., 141 So. 3d 678, 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Dep t of Bus. & Prof l Reg., Div. of Pari Mutuel Wagering, 53 So. 3d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Doyle v. Dep t of Bus. Reg., 794 So. 2d 686, 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The Agrico decision provides a two-prong test to determine when a challenger to agency action meets the substantial interest element found in section (13)(b), Florida Statutes (2016). The Agrico test requires the challenger to demonstrate 1) that 7
8 he will suffer injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to a section hearing, and 2) that his substantial injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect. Agrico, 406 So. 2d at 482. The first aspect of the test deals with the degree of injury. The second deals with the nature of the injury. Id. Under the first prong of Agrico, the injury must be actual or immediate, and not based on a hypothetical scenario. See S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 141 So. 3d at ; Vill. Park Mobile Home Ass n v. State, Dep t of Bus. Reg., 506 So. 2d 426, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). With respect to the second prong, this factor usually requires that the injury is of the type that the statute pursuant to which the agency has acted is designed to protect. Menorah Manor, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 908 So. 2d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Fairbanks, Inc. v. State, Dep t of Transp., 635 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). To have standing to challenge the proposed award of a public contract, an applicant must have a substantial interest to be determined in the case. Preston Carroll Co. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth., 400 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see (3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016). The second lowest bid establishes that substantial interest because if the lowest bid is disqualified, the second lowest bid may receive the award. See Preston Carroll Co., 400 So. 2d at 525 (holding that unsuccessful bidder did not establish substantial interest entitling it to challenge highest bidder where testimony showed it was not second lowest bidder and would not receive award even if challenge was successful). An applicant who submits the fifth lowest bid does not have a substantial interest, unless the applicant can establish that the four higher-ranked applications must all be rejected or re-evaluated, resulting in the protesting filer being ranked highest. See Preston Carroll Co., 400 So. 2d at 525; Louis Berger Grp., Inc. v. Fla. Div. of Emerg. 8
9 Mgmt., Case No BID (Fla. DOAH June 10, 2015; Fla. FDEM July 10, 2015) (relying on Preston Carroll Co. in explaining that unsuccessful bidder was required to demonstrate that all seven bidders ahead of it would be disqualified in order to demonstrate standing); see also Brasfield & Gorrie Gen. Contractor, Inc. v. Ajax Constr. Co. of Tallahassee, 627 So. 2d 1200, 1203 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (noting that unsuccessful bidder finished seventh out of seven bids made, which hardly lends credence to unsuccessful bidder s argument that it had interest substantial enough to establish standing). We find that Madison Highlands has alleged a substantial interest and has met both prongs of the Agrico test. Under the first prong, Madison Highlands has established a real and immediate injury, as its second amended petition alleges that the applications of the four higher-ranked applicants had deficiencies and that if the FHFC had properly scored or considered the higher-ranked applicants, it would have been awarded the housing tax credits for the Hillsborough County development. Madison Highlands has also established that the injury, i.e., being denied the allocation of the housing tax credits, is the type that the proceedings were designed to protect. In considering the dismissal of a petition for a hearing under section , Florida Statutes, an agency must accept as true the factual allegations of the petitions and may not consider any factual matters outside the amended petitions. St. Francis Parkside Lodge of Tampa Bay v. Dep t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 486 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The question of whether the petitioner may ultimately be able to prove the allegations in its petition is a question to be determined at the administrative hearing, not at the pleading stage on an order of dismissal by the agency. Ft. Myers Real Estate 9
10 Holdings, LLC, 53 So. 3d at 1162; see Palm Beach Cty. Envtl. Coal. v. Fla. Dep t of Envtl. Prot., 14 So. 3d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (explaining that question of whether party has standing is different from question of whether party will be able to prove its case). Madison Highlands s second amended petition set forth sufficient allegations, which, taken as true, substantially complied with rule (e) and (f). We reverse and remand for an administrative hearing. REVERSED AND REMANDED. TORPY, J., and THOMPSON, E.R., Senior Judge, concur. 10
CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Department of Corrections.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PRO TECH MONITORING, INC., v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA PULP AND PAPER ASSOCIATION ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT GREGORY L. WILLIAMS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, v. Case
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D18-2035 ASPHALT PAVING SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. ANDERSON COLUMBIA and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellees. On appeal from
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA. BRUCE ROSENZWEIG, BOCA RATON BICYCLE CLUB, and LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA BRUCE ROSENZWEIG, BOCA RATON BICYCLE CLUB, and LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JERRY ULM DODGE, INC. d/b/a JERRY ULM DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP, and FERMAN ON 54, INC. d/b/a FERMAN CHRYSLER DODGE AT CYPRESS CREEK, v. Appellants,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA. v. 1DCA Case No. 1D APPELLANT S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
FAIR INSURANCE RATES IN MONROE, INC. Appellant, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA v. 1DCA Case No. 1D17-1081 OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION, and CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D03-324
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003 O'DONNELL'S CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-324 HIMROD AMBROISE, Appellee. / Opinion Filed November 7, 2003
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. Appellant, v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF ) FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a BLAKE MEDICAL )
More informationAn appeal from an order of the Public Service Commission.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv JDW-EAJ. versus
Kenneth Stewart v. Secretary, FL DOC, et al Doc. 1108737375 Att. 1 Case: 14-11238 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 1 of 15 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED E.L., FATHER OF E.L., A CHILD, Appellant,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Charles S. Stratton and Joshua S. Stratton of Broad and Cassel LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellants.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LYNWOOD AND MYRTLE VIVERETTE, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationCASE NO. 1D Robert A. Harper, Jr., Harper Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICKY HENDERSON, Candidate for School Board District One, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT PINELLAS COUNTY, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D11-2774 DONNA K. BALDWIN,
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DANIEL R. FERNANDEZ and DAX J. LONETTO, SR., PLLC, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed September 24, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-1528 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED LAWRENCE BROCK AND LAURA BROCK, Appellants,
More informationIN TH E SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CaseNo.: SCl UCF ATHLETICS ASSOCIAT10N. INC., and GREAT AMERICAN ASSUR ANCE COMPANY.
l lectronically Filed 10/l 1/2013 03:55:45 PM lit RECE[VED. 10/1 l/2013 15 W i b I bonu., 1). Elall Clcrk. Supremc Court IN TH E SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CaseNo.: SCl3-1874 ENOCK PLANCl IE R, as Personal
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM Appellant, v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2007 JAMES CRAIG DUNLAP, ET AL., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D06-4059 ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC., Appellee. / Opinion filed
More informationCASE NO. 1D Peter D. Webster and Christine Davis Graves of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., v. Appellant/Cross-Appellee, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2010
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2010 Opinion filed May 26, 2010. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D09-3235 Lower Tribunal No. 09-73755
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ARCHANA SINGH and DENNIS MASSEY, Appellants, v. DEV T. KUMAR, Appellee. No. 4D17-241 [October 11, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED TD BANK, N.A., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-1505
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED SHAMROCK-SHAMROCK, INC., ETC., Petitioner,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D16-748
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT WILLIAM E. PACE, TRUSTEE OF THE EARL H. PACE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationCASE NO. 1D H. Richard Bisbee, H. Richard Bisbee P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
RIVERWOOD NURSING CENTER, LLC., D/B/A GLENWOOD NURSING CENTER, Appellant, v. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED TD BANK, N.A., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-1505
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D ) T.A.K., ) ) Appellee. ) )
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D17-549 T.A.K., Appellee.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT CARIBBEAN CONDOMINIUM, ETC., ET AL., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, ETC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-2809 BOGDAN BJELJAC, ET AL., Appellees.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D18-98
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED KYLE C. CARROLL, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2463 ORLANDO HEALTH CENTRAL, INC., Appellant, v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., d/b/a Florida Hospital,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED NEIL VELDEN, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3628
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-351 MARC D. SARNOFF, et al., Petitioners, vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. QUINCE, J. [August 22, 2002] We have for review the
More informationCASE NO. 1D Joseph R. North of the North Law Firm, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NADINE GORE, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D09-6406
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PAUL R. CARRITHERS, CHARLES RAY CARRITHERS, and ROY MICHAEL CARRITHERS, Individually, and PAUL R. CARRITHERS as Trustee of the BELMONT REVOCABLE
More informationCASE NO. 1D Christopher Parker-Cyrus of Law Office of Christopher Parker-Cyrus, Gainesville, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CHRISTOPHER PARKER- CYRUS, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D., 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D., 2009 Opinion filed June 17, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-2949 First Quality Home
More informationNotice and Protest Procedures for Protests Related to a University s Contract Procurement Process.
18.002 Notice and Protest Procedures for Protests Related to a University s Contract Procurement Process. (1) Purpose. The procedures set forth in this Regulation shall apply to protests that arise from
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT WILLIAM CLARK, ET AL., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IS FILED Petitioners, v.
More informationFILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.: 1D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA LENNAR HOMES, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. v. CASE NO.:
More informationCASE NO. 1D Petition for Review of Non-Final Agency Action -- Original Jurisdiction.
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, v. Petitioner, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-177
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DARION JOHNSON, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WILDFLOWER, LLC, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BEVERLY CESARY DANIEL, Appellant, v. Case
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM Appellant, v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2009 MARION COUNTY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D07-1239 C. RAY GREENE, III AND ANGUS S. HASTINGS, ET AL., Appellee. / Opinion
More informationIN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Appeal No. 2D
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Appeal No. 2D13-6052 ALCIDES HERNANDEZ, Appellee. / APPEAL FROM THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D18-145
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DAVID W. FOLEY, JR. AND JENNIFER T. FOLEY,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Andrea Flynn Mogensen of the Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., Sarasota, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PAULA DREW, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D16-2363
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOHN OLIVERA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Nelsa
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT BRAD HEILMAN, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D13-3940
More informationCASE NO. 1D Cory J. Pollack of Cory Jonathan Pollack, P.A., Fort Myers, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GABRIEL LOWMAN, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D17-1385
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GORDON WINANS and KATHY, ) WINANS, his wife, ) ) Appellants, )
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ZACHARY LINVILLE, Petitioner, v. Case No.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-726
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED WILLIAM L. GRANT, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 22, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1286 Lower Tribunal No. 16-8613 Juan Pablo Salgado,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Mark Elliot Pollack, Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA COLLINS ASSET GROUP, LLC, v. Appellant, PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. and DELVERT CAMPFIELD, ET AL., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED COACHWOOD COLONY MHP, LLC, Appellant, v.
More informationDwayne Roberts appeals an order denying petitions for writ of mandamus in
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DWAYNE E. ROBERTS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4104
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JANET M. HALL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-4025
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JOSHUA ANDERSON, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 30, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-2213 Lower Tribunal No. 14-31950 The Bank of New
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT BLACK POINT ASSETS, INC., Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v.
More informationAn appeal from a final order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CHARLES SEYMOUR SMITH, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-1085 PER CURIAM. MARTHA M. TOPPS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [January 22, 2004] Petitioner Martha M. Topps petitions this Court for writ of mandamus.
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATE OF FLORIDA PETITIONER S OPPOSITION TO DFMMJ INVESTMENTS LLC S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN DECLARATORY STATEMENT PROCEEDING
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATE OF FLORIDA GEORGE HACKNEY, INC. d/b/a TRULIEVE, Petitioner, vs. Case No. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Respondent. / PETITIONER S OPPOSITION TO DFMMJ INVESTMENTS LLC S MOTION
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellants/Cross-Appellees NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. MARTIN COMPANIES OF DAYTONA, INC., ET AL., Appellees. Case No.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida POLSTON, J. No. SC13-1668 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, vs. DAVIS FAMILY DAY CARE HOME, Respondent. [March 26, 2015] This case is before the Court for
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 JEAN PIERROT, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ETC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED YEFIM VASILEVSKIY AND YELENA VASILEVSKIY,
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID M. DRESDNER, M.D., P.A., a ) Florida professional service
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ELENA COLLADO, Appellant, v. BRIGITTE BAROUKH, RICHARD ROSEN, MILDRED ZERBARINI, RONALD BUCHHOLZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, TARA DALU, NICK DAMASCENO,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT TOBY BOGORFF, ROBERT BOGORFF, BETH GARCIA, RONALD GARCIA, ROBERT PEARCE, BARBARA PEARCE and TIMOTHY DONALD FARLEY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
More informationDavid S. Romanik of David S. Romanik, P.A., Oxford, for Appellants.
DEBARY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, and STEVEN COSTA Appellants, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 1D12-1654 v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CROIX MICHAEL CARTER, Appellant,
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOSEPH GERHARD MATISSEK and ) KELLY BETH MATISSEK, ) ) Appellants,
More informationAn appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RICHARD LONDON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D08-3129 ) JENNIFER
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Laura Roesch, Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JIMMY WALTERS, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D11-6707
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC13-1882 WALTER E. HEADLEY, JR., MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, et al., Petitioner, QUINCE, J. vs. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, Respondent. [March 2, 2017] CORRECTED
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JOSEPH SILKY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 4D17-2945 [December 13, 2017] Petition for belated appeal to the Circuit
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2965 LAKE CITY FIRE & RESCUE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2288, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, Appellant, v. CITY OF LAKE CITY, FLORIDA, Appellee.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED HERNANDO HMA, LLC, D/B/A BAYFRONT HEALTH
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JUSTINE G. GORDON, Appellant, v. GATLIN COMMONS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., NORTHSIDE NURSERY, INC., Appellee. No. 4D15-2031 [September
More informationCASE NO. 1D George N. Meros, Jr., Andy V. Bardos, and James T. Moore, Jr., of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PORT EVERGLADES PILOTS ASSOCIATION, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006 MICHAEL STAPLER, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D06-1961 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed September 8, 2006 3.800
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT AIRAMID HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, ETC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC L.T. NOs: 4D , 4D THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC07-2402 L.T. NOs: 4D07-2378, 4D07-2379 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Petitioner, v. SURVIVORS CHARTER SCHOOLS, INC., Respondent. On Discretionary
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC96000 PROVIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, Respondent. PARIENTE, J. [May 24, 2001] REVISED OPINION We have for review a decision of
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PAUL FREDERICK KNAPP, Appellant, v. Case
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT WALTOGUY ANFRIANY and MIRELLE ANFRIANY, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, In Trust for the Registered Holders
More informationCASE NO. 1D CASE NO. 1D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Douglas L. Smith of Burke, Blue, Hutchison, Walters & Smith, P.A., Panama City; Michael R. Reiter, Lynn Haven, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD M. RIGBY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D16-665
More informationCASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. E. Douglas Spangler, Jr., Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GOMEZ LAWN SERVICE, INC. and EUGENIO GOMEZ, v. Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT IRIS MONTANEZ, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioner, v. Case No.
More information